qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 0/3] basic support for composing sysbus devi


From: Anthony Liguori
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 0/3] basic support for composing sysbus devices
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:07:57 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10

On 06/10/2011 08:10 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 10 June 2011 13:51, Anthony Liguori<address@hidden>  wrote:
On 06/10/2011 03:13 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:

Jan Kiszka<address@hidden>    writes:

Resource management, e.g. IRQs. That will be useful for other types of
buses as well.

A device should be able to say "I need to be connected to an IRQ line".
Feels generic to me.

More specifically, a device has input IRQs.  A device has no idea what
number the IRQ is tied to.

Devices may also have output IRQs.  At the qdev layer, we should be able to
connect an arbitrary output IRQ to an arbitrary input IRQ.

Actually, devices have input and output I/O signals (GPIOs, if you like).

Yes, I prefer the term Pin but since the discussion was using IRQs, I didn't want to rock the boat ;-)

A subset of these are IRQs. We already have some APIs in QEMU which
claim to be dealing with 'irq's but actually are just for wiring
up generic signals; I'd rather we didn't proliferate that terminology
confusion if possible. (And a single GPIO wire is just one kind of
thing you might want to link between two devices, obviously. MMIO is
another.)

Forget about MMIO. From a device perspective, MMIO is an extremely high level concept. MMIO almost always involves some higher level interface (like PCI, ISA, etc.).

That's really the interface that you want to model. Sysbus ends up being treated as a generic bus in-lieu of implementing machine specific buses (probably because they're proprietary and undocumented). That's sort of okay but we should treat that not as the parent bus of everything but as a generic bus type.

So the crux of the problem is that:

  -device isa-serial,id=serial,irq=3

Is very wrong.  It ought to look something more like

  -device piix3,id=piix3 -device isa-serial,id=serial,irq=piix3.irq[3]

This makes the wiring of this signal look like a property of the
isa-serial device, which is a bit odd, since it's just as much
a property of the piix3. Actually it's neither, it's a property
of the machine model, and you might actually want a syntax a bit
more like:

Think of it like a graph with directed paths. The property is the end point of the connection.

But the key point is: the connections of the graph *IS* the machine model.


  piix3 = piix3(property=value, property=value...);
  serial = isa-serial(property=value...);
  connect(serial.irq, piix3.irq[3]);

You can use a different verb but essentially, it's still:

serial.irq OPERATOR piix3.irq[3]

Picking a direction and using assignment is convenient syntactically.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori


(in some mythical stitching language, which I think makes much
more sense than command line switches anyway.)

-- PMM




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]